On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was > what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at > the time
Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories, and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com There is also an object lesson in Poynder's interview. For OA advocates it is that they come together on open access per se, irrespective of green, gold, gratis, libre, etc. Subscriptioneers are as one, and their position is stronger as a result (even 'green' OA supporters advocate subscriptions as the way to pay for science publishing — "until all research is open access in repositories", which, translated, means "till kingdom come"). Jan Velterop
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
